kingjurisdoctor@gmail.com -- In the Civil Rights Justice system there are two sets of people: Those who are haters and those who fight back. These are their stories. Blink-Blink.
Movies: KingCast.net and KingCast65 YouTube -- A NENPA member news and information journal.

03 April 2013

KingCast sees YouTube up to their old habit of censoring the wrong people while protecting a Revere, MA slumlord and his slandering friends.

YouTube actually removed the original video and threatened to remove yet another one, so I made a third one..... meanwhile read the comments to see how the jokers at Revere City Hall and Inspection Services blocked my emails so I sent a little warning to them via a second email noting a few of my credentials as title insurance producer and zoning manager:

OK so here's the latest bullshit from YouTube: Just because someone appears in a YouTube video who doesn't want to be in it, they can make YouTube strike your video.... which is complete and utter fucking bullshit, particularly when you are covering a goddamn public court event, right.
So what I did was, I went into the video and made some gross edits that addressed their purported concerns, and put it right back up there. Keep in mind that even though I am a YouTube partner there have been times when I could not post videos from my primary KingCast65 or Christopher King account, for no reason whatsoever.... in addition to the Supertramp fiasco (see more at Pink Floyd Network) in which I was twice cleared by the record company but still got my videos yanked from YouTube.
The only reason I changed the video is that I just don't have time to litigate this shit but they are completely in violation of the Hudgens/Pruneyard analysis and I may one day come back and sue them, but right now I am too busy for their little games.

Here is your back story. Don't worry there will be litigation and it will be restored, and there will be more videos on this very subject. To date I have had now two video taken down out of nearly 700 posted. This is complete and absolute bullshit. Here is one woman's story about how she won.YouTube has a habit of making it impossible to reply to them when someone issues a privacy complaint so your video gets a strike and a take down even though the person who issued the complaint in this case clearly defamed the tenant who is being unlawfully evicted. They can go to hell because I wrote their attorneys before on another censorship issue and I am putting this video right back up and going right back at them, and I will indeed sue them over this nonsense and sent them a Hudgens warning before: The subject of this video concerns a PUBLIC COURT CASE with public allegations..... meanwhile the complaining party uttered comments on the video that accused the tenant of being promiscuous and a drunkard and using public money to buy booze and illicit drugs. Eventually there will be a lawsuit over this and YouTube had goddamn better be ready to turn over the original files or there will be some heat like they can't believe because I won't stand for this bullshit.

YouTube has a habit of making it impossible to reply to them when someone issues a privacy complaint so your video gets a strike and a take down even though the person who issued the complaint in this case clearly defamed the tenant who is being unlawfully evicted. They can go to hell because I wrote their attorneys before on another censorship issue and I am putting this video right back up and going right back at them, and I will indeed sue them over this nonsense and sent them a Hudgens warning before.

The subject of this video concerns a PUBLIC COURT CASE with public allegations..... meanwhile the complaining party uttered comments on the video that accused the tenant of being promiscuous and a drunkard and using public money to buy booze and illicit drugs. Eventually there will be a lawsuit over this and YouTube had goddamn better be ready to turn over the original files or there will be some heat like they can't believe because I won't stand for this bullshit.

This video is going to stay up, are we clear? Because otherwise the litigation is going to get nasty and your client will have to explain how and why they are censoring matters of public concern at a goddamn public courthouse. I am not here to be playing around with this nonsense. And please advise your client to return the first video to my queue.

What's the matter Miles, and you clowns at Revere City Hall.... you seem to have blocked my emails from my other email address, but I'm just a wee bit smarter than you, and substantially more professional.

I am putting you on Actual Notice of your dereliction of duty. Ms. Surface contacted you months ago about her apartment and you have failed to take action. If you continue on this path there will be a very ugly incident when I return from the West Coast with my cameras at the end of the month. I imagine the Mayor's office will again call the police on me, but this time I will not be alone, and let's just leave it at that.

As you may know, I was a licensed title insurance agent, and have substantial experience as a zoning manager in various areas of the Country, including New England so I am not stepping into any of this lightly. The email below is the forward I sent to YouTube attorneys after their client erroneously, and unlawfully pulled my first video documenting this fiasco.

Curiously, Ms. Surface continues to host the first video without hassle.

That is all.

**************Dear YouTube attorneys:

I cc'd you on this matter because I will not tolerate your client's actions for the reasons stated hereinbelow.

YouTube has a habit of making it impossible to reply to them when someone issues a privacy complaint so your video gets a strike and a take down even though the person who issued the complaint in this case clearly defamed the tenant who is being unlawfully evicted. They can go to hell because I wrote their attorneys before on another censorship issue and I am putting this video right back up and going right back at them, and I will indeed sue them over this nonsense and sent them a Hudgens warning before.

The subject of this video concerns a PUBLIC COURT CASE with public allegations..... meanwhile the complaining party uttered comments on the video that accused the tenant of being promiscuous and a drunkard and using public money to buy booze and illicit drugs. Eventually there will be a lawsuit over this and YouTube had goddamn better be ready to turn over the original files or there will be some heat like they can't believe because I won't stand for this bullshit.

This video is going to stay up, are we clear? Because otherwise the litigation is going to get nasty and your client will have to explain how and why they are censoring matters of public concern at a goddamn public courthouse. I am not here to be playing around with this nonsense. And please advise your client to return the first video to my queue.